Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Yep - I can think of at least one legitimate use for me. Working for a large nameless and faceless corporation, they do content filtering on the firewall and sometimes some suprising things get blocked. The FreeTDS [freetds.org] site was blocked for some dumb reason, for example. Being a UNIX system administrator, I do a lot of research on security and hacking methods (I wear a white hat, for sure) and frequently get blocked by the firewall because I'm looking up stuff on sites it labels as "hacking related". I mean, d

If they dont like how things are where they live they are human and they can leave and come here to the USA it seems we let people live here for free anyways!

Err, which USA do you live in? Nothing here is free, not even speech. And it's not the Dweeb Police (is that like the fashion police??) that tell you what to do - it's the lawmakers who write the laws, the police just enforce them.

That and I dont use windows so this makes it much easier to avoid security meausures..

The article says the data between the proxy and user is encrypted.
I think the idea is there is no single point of failure. Each user has one 'contact' in the 'free' country. Even if the proxy is identified and blocked you're only cutting off one user. Whereas usually you block the servers at the source, stopping everyone from seeing it.

This is a fantastic service! It would be a great way for the troops in Iraq to get their message out; since they recently had a big crack down too. China is not the only place where you can be prosecuted / persecuted for what you write online.

If the military person in question posts something that will cause risk to others in doing their JOB, then I would hope the government would tarck down the person setting up this "service" for said military person, and find out who they set it up for...If they refuse, toss them in jail in a 6x8 solitary confinement cell, forever until they do.

I'm all for free-speech. I'm not all for free-speech that can bring risk of life to others in the military (directly).

It kinda sucks the parent posted AC, because in my opinion, he should be in mod-point heaven.

Yes, you certainly do have the right to free speech - but not when it infringes on other people's rights and physical safety. If you still disagree, how would you like it if you or one of your family or friends works as an under-cover police officer, and I went and blabbed my mouth off as to what they do, their name, city, etc - resulting in them being found on the bottom of a riverbed. Its fairly close to the sa

Members of the military are not entitled to free speech, but we've seen that tossed to the wind over the last 3+ years.Now only some members of the military are entitled to free speech, the ones that agree with the official line.

You don't have to give violate OPSEC to disagree, but you shouldn't be agreeing or disagreeing in public anyways - it's not good for anybody.

Give me a break. When joining the armed forces, you agree to abide by the regulations of your branch of service.Operational Security(OPSEC) and Communications Security(COMSEC) are clearly defined in the appropriate regulations. A servicemember's right to free speech takes a back seat to both of those for good reason.

Anyone reading some of the blogs I've seen some of my fellow soldiers post could swiftly identify the best time and place for a hasty ambush. Breaking OPSEC/COMSEC = dead soldiers.

1) As always, there's a total lack of understanding here of how police states work. You think the Saudi or Myanmanmar police are going to look at your computer and say "Gee, what with your 1337 circumvention software, I guess we can't make a case against you! Have a nice day!"?

2) On the other hand, I'm sure there *are* plenty of people who could make enthusiastic use of web browsing from some stranger's IP. But I'm sure they'd never get you in serious trouble, right?

You bring up some important points. The 'contact' is putting his trust in the guy he's helping do the circumvention. Its the same idea as an open wireless network. Even if you don't mind sharing your bandwidth with strangers, do you trust them to not download kiddie porn or run a phishing scam over your internet connection? That'll probably come back to bite you in the ass if they do.Your first point depends on how hard it is to detect that some one is using this circumvention software. They're doing someth

I heard an interview on NPR last night with one of the Professors who was involved with the creation of this software. The idea behind it is that it is to be used in a web of trust, not with random strangers. So if you're mainland Chinese and you have a cousin in the US, you let him provide you the connection. Don't leave it up to strangers to provide you the connection.

But also for Americans. More and more of us are going to schools, universities, and workplaces that install and use content filtering/firewalls. Where I work most of/. isn't blocked (obviously), but curiously enough, the games and ask sections of slashdot are blocked.
Most blogs and web forums are blocked as well. The sad thing is, a major part of my job is research, and more and more important information is coming via those venues (at least in my field), and other sites that being blocked.

I setup a personal VPN server at home, then tried tunneling X over it via an SSH connection to see how feasible it was to browse from home while at work. Nifty, except I also knew my office had stealthed VNCs installed on all the machines, thereby rendering any such circumvention completely moot. Fine for your personal machines when you're worried about your provider/government. Not so much when you're worried about what you do on your employer's machines or any machine you don't have absolute control over

If your company blocks gaming sites, yet your job requires gaming sites, you should use the proper avenue to get permission to view gaming sites. In many orgs, our manager will need to tell your security department that you need the access.

If, on the other hand, you use proxy servers or other technology to willingly and knowingly circumvent your company's policy and security controls, you could wind up fired. Don't be a dumbass.

>But also for Americans. More and more of us are going to schools, universities, and workplaces that install and use content filtering/firewalls.

The counter to this argument is budgets. Most schools recieve their funding for high-speed bandwidth through a grant. The provisios of that grant state we need to apply a content filtering system to protect our children. As the primary monitor our districts traffic through the firewall, I see and hear these arguments all the time. I do not think it is possible t

Brilliant. But you don't win freedom or anything else by hiding somewhere and spreading nonsense on the internet. If you want things to change, the way forward it to go out there and take the risks. The ones who don't have the courage very rarely have anything real to say. Look at our own history in the West: it is littered with examples of who changes were brought about because of the struggle of those who had vision and courage. The same thing is happening in China, and not at all slowly when you compare to how things went in Europe. Just look at what has happened in the last 20 years; did people in eg. UK ever go through such enormous changes in so short a time?

Since you ask, in the 17th Century the English fought a Civil War at the end of which they executed a King. They then had a Revolutionary government which turned them from an obscure island to a major European power. The revolutionary government then collapsed and the Stuarts returned (back to the old corruption, in fact). In 1688 they turned out the Stuarts and started Constitutional Monarchy. In roughly a 40 year period they had a Revolution, a Cultural Revolution under a militaristic dictator, a reconque

Stay on track, and get informed Lindsey.You're letting your ideology interfere with your thinking.The revolution itself required the communication for those folks you claim had very little to do with it.

The "collapse" is a separate issue from the communications that were required for the people who made the changes in government.

Fax machines did not collapse the USSR, but they made the change one that swung towards a form of Democracy instead of another totalitarian regime.

Fax machines did not collapse the USSR, but they made the change one that swung towards a form of Democracy instead of another totalitarian regime.

Hmmmm...so you think Russia has a form of Democracy and not a totalitarian regime, huh? You might want to pay a little closer attention to the newscasts... Have a look at this Google news search [google.com]. There's more to Russia than meets the eye.

Like the printing press in the American Revolution.

While I don't doubt that printers and printing presses had a lot to do wit

"I would say that the invention of the printing press had more to do with European people seeking to colonize America than with the Revolution itself."And so you would be revealing your own massive ignorance.The fax machine was anything but new

Russia is a Democracy last time I checked, elections with opposition party's, am elected head of state and legislature and an operating legal system.Flawed, broken, but not down or out - it's in a very close approximation to most of the major democracy's around the wo

No, it would not. What killed ussr/psrs was the space race. At around 1985 psrs was already starting to move their key assets to what is now russia - they perfectly well saw that the economic model is simply not sustainable and the whole perestroika was just a PR presentation of the inevitable.The difference between china and psrs lies in the centralization of economic management. This is the single reason why china is still as it is - helped by the outsourcing wave that gave them the tools, of course.

One individual revolutionary isn't going to change anything. One revolutionary that spreads his ideas to others and builds a following can. Thats why their internet is censored in the first place. It blocks the message and blocks the crucial organization of followers.

As far as I can tell, this is nothing new-- there are a variety of publicly available programs that have done the same thing since as early as 1996, when China and Singapore first announced their intentions to censor the Web. One such tool is CGIProxy [jmarshall.com], but there are others. Or is there something else about Psiphon, am I missing something?

Well, you could read their FAQ, but since others have posted the same, I'll reply.The primary this is easy to install and use. The software package will be designed for easy installation on most operating systems. If you have a friend using a state-filtered 'net connection, then it will be can help them without understanding the specifics of port forwarding, encryption, or web servers. Ease of use allows ease of distribution.

The primary this is easy to install and use. The software package will be designed for easy installation on most operating systems. If you have a friend using a state-filtered 'net connection, then it will be can help them without understanding the specifics of port forwarding, encryption, or web servers. Ease of use allows ease of distribution.

Actually, CGIProxy has had automatic installers for several years, for both Unix and Windows. The Windows installer includes a secure Apache server and Perl, and

Encryption is very important to someone circumventing authoritative measures. When you are facing jail time for crimes against the state, you want to be sure that your activities are hidden. Wikipedia is not going to be running on SSL anytime soon, so this is a useful feature. Why are you so against new software models, jsm? The slashdot summary did not say it was the first time it was being done, so what's your beef? Or do you look down on any software forking? Listen, that's the beauty of open softw

Easy there, cowboy-- I'm not against any new software models, and I don't look down on software forking; I never mentioned either, nor anything about any 99.999% . From my site, it's easy to tell that I have long supported OSS, and even intentionally write my software to be easy to modify. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The story summary says "the fact that software like Psiphon is becoming publicly available is interesting." That is what I was correcting, because such software has been publicly a

CGIProxy requires a server and is not stand alonePsiPhon is supposed to be installable on any PC connected to the internet in an uncensored country.Plug and go, if we ever see it.I suspect that liablity lawyers have gotten in the way at UofT.

CGIProxy requires a server and is not stand alone
PsiPhon is supposed to be installable on any PC connected to the internet in an uncensored country. Plug and go, if we ever see it.

Actually, CGIProxy is installable on just about any machine, regardless of OS. For Windows, there is an automatic installer that includes a secure Apache server and Perl, so the package is, in effect, stand-alone. The installing person does not need technical skills. It's already "plug and go".

As far as I can tell, this is nothing new-- there are a variety of publicly available programs that have done the same thing since as early as 1996, when China and Singapore first announced their intentions to censor the Web. One such tool is CGIProxy, but there are others.

My first thought was that this was Triangle Boy [alternet.org] all over again (except without Safeweb on the other end, but that was sort of immaterial anyway).

There.Somebody had to say it.No download links anywhere, not for source code or executable on any platform.Until the product actually exists "in the wild", China and the University of Parinoia have nothing to fear but enthusiasm.

I appreciate the idea behind PSIPHON and the PR, but until there's a PRODUCT any discussion is just jaw flapping, not discussion of PSIPHON.

And I'm pretty damn sure it's still Dec 1 somewhere. It's December 1 by my clock, and it's on UTC, even, and just by virture of that, I will vehemently contest that your statement of "Dec 1 is over" is incorrect.

Granted, if they were promoting a Dec 1 release date, I'd think it would have been released at the BEGINNING of Dec 1, not the end.

The Hippocratic oath that doctors take includes the statement "First, do no harm". What country has the corporations that are creating the architecture to allow the Chinese government to censor material? The answer is the US - Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, Cisco and other corporations have been who have implemented this censorship for the Chinese government. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to say you are setting up "free zones" in "free countries" to help evade censorship, when the people who control the capital in the US are the ones who have implemented the censorship in China. If this were a free country, the obvious answer would be to just have these corporations stop implementing the censorship in China. Instead, that, which is the only solution that makes any sense, is not even thought of, and instead these PR "free zones" are set up, so that Chinese people can attempt to evade (at their own personal risk) the censorship which is set up by US corporations, including the US corporations like Yahoo who helped China hunt down dissidents like Shi Tao. This stuff is a joke, if you want to stop censorship in China, stop implementing it in the US.

Regrettably, given the influence of business in modern government, this is unlikely to happen any time soon. The best we can do is attempt to ensure that we are responsible for as little money as possible making its way to such countries. Need to us AOL messenger service? Use a third party programme to avoid any advertising provided by AOL. Need software made by any of the above? Use an open source alternative. Or a pirated version. It's more moral than giving any money to then.

Oh knock it off with the "EVIL CORPORATIONS!!! EVIL UNITED STATES!!!". You know if the U.S. declared a technology embargo to China, self rightous dweebs like yourself would be all up in arms that "Corporations are trying to intimidate the soveriegn nation of China and undermine socialism", just like you already do with Cuba! Censorship existed in far greater extremes in China back in the day when China was as anti-American and anti-Free-Market as yourself. Tell me the U.S. corporation that was making censor

"Oh knock it off with the "EVIL CORPORATIONS!!! EVIL UNITED STATES!!!". You know if the U.S. declared a technology embargo to China, self rightous dweebs like yourself would be all up in arms that "Corporations are trying to intimidate the soveriegn nation of China and undermine socialism", just like you already do with Cuba!"

Nice strawman. You have no idea whether or not GP is pro-socialist, or against the Cuban embargo. I haven't heard *anybody* advocating a US government embargo of China.

Rhino may have accidentally created a straw man, but GGP did artificially create the bogus Corporations-->US linkage.It's unfair to blame Americans here. Multinational corporations are involved. Which means there's nothing to stop a Free Market response to China in every country.

Caveat: Personally, I think the day China embraced capitalism, they lost the great revolution. Capitalism is improving people's lives substantially and one day the chinese citizenry will 'wake up' and decide that human life i

Tell me a country that will allow you to do business there while having a disregard for it's laws. Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, etc.... have to obey the laws of the country they are operating in. Foreign companies have to do the same here... get over it. If you don't like the laws of a country you are doing business in, then don't do business there. But don't try to circumvent their laws simply because you don't agree with it.
Those companies didn't just arbitrarily censor information, they were told to do so

I think that most people who rant about China filtering the content of their internet users are forgetting one thing.... China is not our country. They have the right to run their society any way they see fit. We tend to look at the world in a particular way, and if it doesn't match our ideal of the way things are supposed to be, we think we have the God given right to change it. Do we really have that right? How would we feel if an outside interest group decided that we needed to be changed and that our la

"we think we have the God given right to change it"How about leaving God out of it, these are the affairs of men."China has it's laws and their citizens have to obey those laws, just as we must obey the laws in our own country"Except and unless those laws are wrong, then we and they have an obligation to change or violate them. You won't see a change though unless someone is willing to violate them.

"Giving the average Chinese citizen the ability to circumvent those laws is not doing them a service since the

As I said in my original post... we look at the world in a particular way and think we have the right to change things. My point is that we do not.
To say that their laws are wrong is a VERY arrogant statement. It might not be right for you, but that doesn't give you or any outsider the right to change it.
"All people have a right to knowledge, it's a basis of a free society"...interesting statement....China is not a free society. They have a government that they themselves put in place, and for the most

You asked people in a repressive, authoritative state how they liked it? Where, in this very topic, they are known not to have access to information that goes against what their leaders tell them. Where they could get thrown in jail for saying they don't agree with the state. And thus, your proof that they like their state policies is that they said yes, when you, an English speaking tourist, asked if they liked their government.

I wasn't a tourist. I was living and working there. And yes, the many that I asked like their form of government.
Here is an example... I asked about the laws there concerning one child per couple because some of the people that I was working with had brothers and sisters. The agree with the reasoning behind the law. I asked them how they felt about only having one child instead of many to take care of them when they get old and was told "oh it's ok.. the government will take care of us". You see, they tru

I never said that they didn't care about freedom. I said that the Chinese people that I worked with and talked to were happy with their government. Notice the statement "I talked with".... as in sitting in a restaurant and having dinner, as in working beside for weeks on end. My statements didn't come from reading a blog, but actual face to face conversations with the natives. I also said that our trying to circumvent their laws was improper, which was the entire point of my post. Read a post in it's entire

"oh it's ok.. the government will take care of us". You see, they trust their government to do what they think is the right thing for them.

You see that same attitude from Americans too. Watch any Slashdot conversation on the subject of "piracy". Count the number of "but the MPAA/RIAA/BSA is doing the right thing by suing 12-year-olds because the law SAYS they're doing the right thing!" posts. That doesn't mean that the attitude is prevalent, it just means there are some people who are incapable of indep

"To say that their laws are wrong is a VERY arrogant statement."No it isn't, it's only Arrogant if I take arrogance to the the statement.If a law is wrong, it's wrong - here in America or in China.I have the right as a free human to try and change ANYTHING I perceive as wrong.

China is not a free society, your statement not mine - and once freedom has been taken it's not a simple matter to restore it.The people of China did not chose the government they have in place, the people who live before them chose it

I knew of a doctor who once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Someone made him an organ donor, too, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to say what he said.
No one has the right to oppress, I don't care what the governments tell each other.

To a degree I can agree with that statement (from the doctor). Injustice... slavery, apartheid, genocide, etc... should be delt with. But in this case, we are looking at making Chinese society a mirror of our own. Or rather looking at them through an "American filter" if you will. They are not us. What works in their society for the most part would not work in ours. Would I like to live in a society where information was limited? No, I would not. But that's my point of view. I don't feel that I have the rig

I'm in China. This is how I tapped the cersorship, by having a TOR(http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]) installed. With this software, I can access all banned sites i know. The software has a few flaws, one is that it lacks of fast proxy servers, which anyone of you unchecked freemen can be; Another is its windows version has a very resource-consuming GUI which is based on QT library.
So here i hope more people can establish more proxy servers for the software and join to the development of the software. That will m

Greetings.The problem with TOR is the software you use to find proxy servers is also accessible to the people who want to stop you from accessing them. It is their full-time job to know more about proxies than you. That's why technology is key: Only you and your Psiphon host know of the Internet address. By the way, is proxy circumvention (avoidance) illegal where you live?

It is not only China that is censoring. There is a site-blocker proxy where I live and work. (I am an American by the way.) In add

There exists a team of network administrators here who spend all day adding sites to the block list and watching browsing habits 24-hours-a-day for additional sites to block. (The Psiphon web site is already inaccessible to me. Slashdot's story submission entitled "Gingrich says Free Speech Forfeit" is blocked, yet the remainder of Slashdot is not.)

This is not an unusual practice in corporations. Most IT teams take their junior staff members and have them monitor the proxy and browsing habits of their corporate co-workers. This keeps them busy while they learn their on-the-job skills. Sad, I agree, but not unusual.

Not a moment too soon indeed. I witnessed today that the Iranian govenrment is restricting access to Wikipedia (in all languages). While personally I use torpark (a version of Portable Firefox with Tor network integration built-in) and getting past their firewall takes a single click, I feel for the masses who are not very technologically adept, and have suffered heavily from these censorships. Indeed, Wikipedia was slowly but surely gaining momentum in Iran, and I was helping a group of university scholars

instead of just parroting left-wing talking points like a complete tool?

Okay, let's try an old Bush administration "talking point": It was publicly and openly stated before the war that, after we destroyed their country, we were going to take their oil in "exchange" for rebuilding it.